|
So
Smash the State, Already! Let
me get right to the point: I am not an “anarcho-capitalist,”
nor am I an “individualist anarchist” or a “philosophical
anarchist” or even, in the way the term tends to be understood, a
“rational anarchist” (although I am both rational and an anarchist).
I’m not a “socialist anarchist” or “communist anarchist” or an
“anarcho-syndicalist” (although I am both an anarchist and, in some
respects, a syndicalist). I’m
an anarchist: one who supports the elimination of the state -- the state
being defined, at least herein, as an organization laying claim to,
maintaining, and generally regarded as having, an enforceable monopoly
on the use of force in a given geographic area. I support the
elimination of the state as such, and I support the elimination of all
its actual iterations. I’m
an anarchist, period. There’s
a cottage industry -- one of which I very much approve -- centered
around the creation of both utopian and dystopian speculative fiction
focused on theoretical anarchist societies.
I approve of this cottage industry because fiction is the proper
format in which to deal with what the stateless society will look like. Fiction
is the proper format for dealing with that because we aren’t there
yet. We haven’t seen what the stateless society will look
like. All we really know is that it will be . . . well . . . stateless. And
that’s all that really matters. I’m
an anarchist because I can’t imagine a stateless society that isn’t
superior (in every way that matters) to any version of state-tainted
society that I’ve seen or read of. Governments
seem to have outright murdered in excess of
170 million of “their” citizens in the 20th
century alone -- and that excludes another 40 or 50 million killed in
the 20th century states’ gangland feuds (“wars”).[1] When
it wasn’t busy murdering people, the 20th century state was
busy mugging them. Just to throw out a random factoid, the 26 states
comprising the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
had a bottom taxation level of around 25% of their Gross Domestic
Products from 1965-2000.[2] Don’t
even get me started on the costs of regulation, the enforcement of
“laws” against “crimes” which have no victims, the rate of
imprisonment or the sheer bloody humiliation of being required to kneel
before some bureaucrat (whose wages are paid by said prostrate serf) and
ask “permission” to exercise
“privileges” which the poor peasant, likewise, paid the cost of
providing in the first place. It
isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine improving on the performance of
our enemy, the state. I’ll take L. Neil Smith’s North American
Confederacy, Ken MacLeod’s Norlonto or New Mars, even Ursula K.
LeGuin’s Annares or Hobbes’s “state of nature” (I’ll take my
chances on making life less nasty, brutish and short -- I’m
more red in tooth and claw than Tennyson could imagine, Bubba)
any time. Any
one of them would do. And I
don’t really get to pick and choose anyway. The most I can do is my
little part of smashing the state and then things will go how they go.
That’s why it’s called anarchy, right? So
-- why the constant factional conflict between “x-anarchists”
and “y-anarchists?” Yeah,
yeah, I know. The
“socialist anarchists” hold that “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t really
anarchism because private property would entail hierarchy, and that
hierarchy is the essence of the state. The
“anarcho-capitalists” hold that the “socialist anarchists”
aren’t really anarchists
because socialism would require coercion, and that coercion is the
essence of the state.[3] Screw
the essence of the state,
fellas. We’ve got a whole lot more than “essence” to deal with at
the moment. The
big ol’ hairy beast itself, for example. If
you think the 20th century was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’
yet. Hitler, Stalin and Co. were dilettantes who barely scratched the
surface of human suffering. Work camps, gas chambers and ovens? Amateur
theatre. The
post-WWII state started off by developing weapons that can
vaporize more people in 45 minutes than its less able and
ambitious predecessors managed in 45 years. When
it’s had an idle moment between killing off its victims and washing
their blood from its paws, the monster has been putting that stolen 25%+
of GDP to good use figuring out new ways to create more mayhem --
everything from cruise missiles that can target the exact center of that
zit on your forehead, to microwave beams that’ll heat up your skin
until you fall over and scream “uncle,” to germs, chemicals and
mycotoxins that will peel that skin right off your still-twitching body. ‘Twixt
and ‘tween those joyous endeavors, the state has found time to attach
all kinds of numbers, fingerprints and other identifiers to its victims,
clamp down on their ability to travel or trade without forking over a
percentage as vigorish and, worst of all, move forward on its ultimate
goal: twisting its victims’ consciousnesses until they begin to
actually believe that this is normal life. There
is certainly a place for the utopian vision[4]
-- and, I suppose, even room for arguments over methods and means --
but, eventually, we have to do something and let the chips fall
where they may. That’s
where they’re going to fall anyway -- and it’s not like we could do
any worse. Smash the state, already. [1]
“Death by
Democide,“ by R.J. Rummel [2]
“Taxes as Shares of GDP
in the United States and Other OECD Nations, 1965-2000,” from
Citizens for Tax Justice [3]
I find the “anarcho-capitalist” line more persuasive on this
particular issue, aside from the fact that “capitalism” is an
unfit term for use in conjunction with anarchism --
“capitalism,” per Fred Foldvary’s Dictionary of Free-Market
Economics, refers to “industrialized mixed economies,” i.e. state-regulated
economies. A more proper term -- one that might even allow me to
affix a factional badge to my anarchism -- would be “market
anarchism” or “laissez-faire anarchism.” Or maybe just “agorism.” [4] As a matter of fact, that vision is quite necessary -- read L. Neil Smith’s “Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision” for more on its importance. |